Justice Musa Kakaki of a Federal High Court sitting g in Lagos, has fixed April. 15, 2025 for the fraud and attempted murder case against the Chief Executive Officer of Oak Homes Limited, Olukayode Olusanya.
The. court fixed the date after hearing arguments from both the prosecution and defence Counsel over the admissibility of the defendant’s statement and a petition against him.
Olusanya and his company are facing four count-charge brought against them by the police, including conspiracy, threat to life, obtaining money by false pretense, and stealing.
He was arraigned on November 26, 2024, but pleaded not guilty.
According to the police, Olusanya conspired with Lynda Umeh, the company’s head of sales and marketing, who is currently at large, to defraud a Nigerian-American engineer, Anthony Ugbebor.
The police said that between November 8, 2017, and August 4, 2020, both allegedly deceived Ugbebor into paying N152m, for two units of three-bedroom apartments at the Oak Residence, Victoria Island, with a promise to hand over possession by February 28, 2019.
However, they failed to deliver the property.
The police prosecution counsel, M.A. Omo-Osagie, further alleged that Olusanya stole the funds and later conspired to murder Ugbebor for reporting him to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and other authorities.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Omo-Osagie called the first prosecution witness, Assistant Superintendent of Police Egho Amiebelomo.
The officer testified that the police received a petition from Ugbebor, which led to an investigation.
Amiebelomo recounted how Olusanya initially refused to cooperate with police inquiries, claiming the Assistant Inspector General’s office was “too small” for him.
According to the witness, he was eventually arrested at his office and later released on bail. However, he absconded for months before being re-arrested and brought to court.
The prosecution attempted to submit Olusanya’s statement and the complainant’s petition as evidence, but defence counsel, Agboola Adeleke (SAN), objected, arguing that the statement was not taken in the presence of a lawyer or video-recorded, as required under Section 9 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
In response, Omo-Osagie countered that the defence’s objection was misplaced, citing Section 15(4) of the Act, which allows for statements to be recorded with or without video evidence.
He also argued that the petition was a public document and, therefore, admissible in court.
“Sections 100-104 of the Evidence Act 2011, particularly Section 103, stipulate that any document in the possession of a public officer is a public document,” Omo-Osagie stated.
“The petition originated from a private citizen but was officially received and acted upon by the AIG, with official stamps and directives. That makes it a public document, admissible under the law.
“The key question here is whether this document is relevant to the trial of the defendant. Since it is, we urge the court to dismiss the objections raised by the defence and admit the evidence,” he added.
After listening to both sides, Justice Kakaki adjourned the case to April 15, 2025, for ruling on the objections and continuation of trial.
End
